It’s reflective of the mismatch in stated intentions vs actions. It has been said that many EU states/citizens tend to regard EU instructions as advice, rather than laws to be obeyed. UK politicians never really learned how to play by the unstated EU rules, to the detriment of the UK.

All of Germany is North of 47 N; Denmark appears to be largely north of 54 – 30 N.

For comparison:
Duluth is about 46 – 50 North;
Sept Iles is just north of 50 N;
And Prince Rupert, BC is also about 54 – 30 N.
Tokyo is about 36 North, and Siberia’s [ISH – anyway] Sakhalin Island reaches as far south as about 46 N. Its northern end is in about 54 – 30 N.

At 54 N – the winter nights are long, and dark – think the Latitude of Whitby, North Yorkshire.
Less than eight hours daylight in much of December and January, and the Sun is pretty low on the horizon, even at noon.
At 54 N – 90 – (23 + 54) – so about 13 degrees above the horizon on 20 & 21 December.
Less if you a hill to the south [I do on the South Downs, about 51 N]

The money to pay to subsidize the off-shore wind turbine installations has to come from somewhere — Do you reckon it may come from payments that are produced by economic enterprises who are being powered by fossil fuels? Or, in other words, do you reckon that it could be fossil fuels who are carrying the added cost load for subsidies that are being paid to “renewables?”

Good point. I would imagine the vast majority of the subsidies come from the taxpayers, and if the voting populace thinks the added cost is a good idea, then it’s probably appropriate that the taxpayer is the source.

European look at things differently than we do. They’ve done a lot of things at taxpayer expense that we wouldn’t even consider – high speed trains for example, and a working passenger train network. I think Germany is wrong about their climate policies, but who cares what I think, the German population generally supports it.

Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Accord was met with great angst by Europeans, and we shouldn’t be cynical about it. The Euro countries have stepped up to the Paris Accord, and we haven’t (or at least Trump hasn’t). Whether those outside of Trump’s base support the decision is a good question.

the voting populace
=============
the vote is largely an illusion. EU regulation governs Europe, with national governments largely serving as figureheads for policies decreed by the European Commission in Brussels.

for example this is from the EU’s own web-site:
Decision-making
Commission initiatives for new policies, communications and laws need to be agreed on internally. In the case of proposed laws, they need to be agreed on by the Commission before they can be adopted by the European Parliament and Council, the EU’s co-legislators.

spoken like a true russian troll seeking to undermine european freedom. Every EU country has veto power over every EU regulation. Sure the EU has plenty of problems, but such a blanket statement is just BS

Fortunately for anyone and everyone interested in renewable energy, President Trump won’t be saying “I’m sorry but renewables won’t be allowed in the United States” which is the direction most other regeimes are turning WRT Fossil Fuels. If you want roof top solar, go for it, I won’t stop you, just don’t ask me to foot the cost of the installation or maintenance bills for you. You are welcomed to use any energy source that YOU can afford to install yourself.
Trump won’t have any legislation passed that requires using Fossil Fuels exclusively.

If you want Carbon Free energy that can support grid level baseload needs then don’t block Hydro or Nuclear. Wise up!
Fossil will eventually phase out without the need for costly legislation as there is only so much of it that is available. Don’t forget it takes millions of years to create more.

If you imagine that national or local governments can override EU dictates, try talking to a Somerset farmer or Yorkshire fisherman. Why do you suppose that British voters chose to throw off their chains?

Out of the rates I pay to my utility company, I have paid my portion of exactly 2 nuclear power generators.
The pair produce 2200MW 24/7/365 with a capacity factor of 95% and use exactly 12 acres of space to do so.
To replace the facility with wind (due to capacity factor production vs Nameplate figures) would take upwards of 88740 wind turbines (similar to those at Altamont Pass) and they would require 90,000 to 140,000 acres of land.

spoken like a true russian troll seeking to undermine european freedom. Every EU country has veto power over every EU regulation. Sure the EU has plenty of problems, but such a blanket statement is just BS”

A rather scandalous accusation by a trollop whom has confirmed themselves devoid of respect, knowledge, humanity, human compassion and many other desirous traits.

You are a true ‘Equus africanus asinus’ and obviously beyond hope.

The question is why does WUWT suffer your hatred and festering?

By the way, ignoramass; What is left of European freedom is over rated and greatly endangered.

The payment for electircity and subsidies in Germany comer solely from consumers.

Low income consumers pay a large part of their income. High efficiency equipment is not affordabel for them – so they pay even more. Big problem even for tennants with electric heating – they have no choice.

UKIP seems to believe UK will rid itself of MetOffice etc by leaving the EU. It seems rather the contrary:
– MetOffice etc staff members will have more time now when frequent travels to European Commission’s various preparatory meetings drop off from their calendar.
-Theresa May will have to find employment the British citizens currently working in the European Commission’s various secretariats.

Both Strip Mines and Pit Mines can be reused as areas of Carbon Sinks though. For the area to have Coal, it must have been a swamp at some point in the past. A place where many trees fell and sank under water to form the initial materials that became the coal. Simply plant/replant fast growing Poplar trees and harvest them every 5-7 years. Then place them into the Pit Mine and cover with water. Add clearing debris and forest fire leavings, re-peet until full then cover over for the next several million years until the Coal is reformed.

Price of new offshore wind contracts is pretty low. Germany just signed the first offshore wind contract with zero subsidy. So as far as that argument goes, it’s no longer valid. On shore is cheaper than coal nowadays, but there are only so many places you can put them without ruining the view.

What? You don’t get that? LOL. Here’s a clue: if you try to prove that windpower is more cost effective than coal (that is what matters, you know, not if it is “cheaper” — whatever you mean by that (eye roll)) — you will be working on that little research project loooong after this thread has been closed for comments, i.e., wind and solar’s EROEI (and ROI, also) is negative and, barring a miraculous technology breakthrough (not — even — on — the — horizon), it always will be.

haha Janice, that was pretty funny. Why does it bother you so much that something is cheaper than something else? I totally get it that you don’t want the free market to be intervened in by governments, but if a technology can stand in the free market on it’s own, then what does it matter?

don’t have figures for Germany, but I doubt much different to UK. Following are for project start in 2017 levelised electricity generation costs per MWh in the UK (data from Mott MacDonald):
Gas CCGT: £65 / MWh
ASC Coal: £60 / MWh
Nuclear PWR: £65 – £100 / MWh
Onshore Wind: £85 / MWh nominal PLUS £60 / MWh for addl system costs (eg remote grid connections) and planning reserve = £145 / MWh
Offshore Wind: £113 / MWh nominal PLUS £67 / MWh for addl system costs and planning reserve = £180 / MWh
So coal and gas power generation are almost the same cost at about £65 / MWh. That makes coal and gas less than the half (45%) the cost of onshore wind and nearly one third (36%) of the cost of offshore wind.

Of course, if you can pretend that the extra costs don’t exist for renewables and make up “special costs” for gas and coal, you make out that wind is viable. And all this before even considering how you power grid on intermittent renewables. Green policies are Voodoo economics.

ah yeah the classical ‘let’s pretend technological progress does not exist’ fallacy. That works when you’re commenting on WUWT, but not when you’re in the business of investing actual money in actual energy projects. As you’d read from the article, the costs of offshore wind are going down a lot (-22% in 2016 alone!).

And your source, I have no idea who that is, but a dude on the internet not a source is.

zero subsidy
==========
are the windmills payed the wholesale price of power, or are the paid a “feed-in” tariff? There is a huge difference.

Typically power stations only get paid when power is needed (supply and demand). when power is not needed, the wholesale price goes to near zero (it can even go negative), and power plants regulate themselves. No power station is going to want to produce power if the price is negative.

however, in the case of wind power, when the wind is blowing there will be lots of power available, and thus the wholesale price will drop to near zero, and if windmills were paid the wholesale price they would not make any money. So instead they are paid a fixed price, even if the power is not needed.

And as a result the windmills keep pumping out power, even when it is not needed, even when the price goes negative because there is too much power, and other power stations have to pay the grid if they are producing power. And it is because of this that windmills destabilize the grid.

So while people might say there is no subsidy, there is a huge subsidy for windmills, because they are not paid the wholesale priced. Instead they are paid an artificial price that has nothing to do with supply and demand.

And as a result this destabilized the market, and leads to situations where other power plants now need to be paid to supply “hot backup” for the windmills. In effect, the conventional power plants are being paid not to produce power, which is a hidden subsidy to the windmills. In the past the market regulated all this automatically by price, and power plants were not paid to sit idle. All of which kept prices low.

these are all good points and should be taken into account when pricing renewables, just as other externalities should be taken into account when pricing fossil fuels. The point I was raising is not that renewables are cheap (they are not). Sadly I got myself dragged into that debate, but let’s just end it because it’s meaningless. The point is that the WUWT article implies european countries are hypocrites, but they are not, because they are aware of this stagnation in CO2 reduction and are thus investing considerable sums (taxpayer money) into reducing their CO2 emissions. That’s the only point I want to make here.

Off-shore wind power — LMAO. A weak/almost insignificant and unreliable power producer located on the ocean susceptible to storms/salt water and expensive/difficult installation & maintenance? What a waste of money & resources.

Oh well, the “good” news is that, once European economies crash and burn due to the economic suicide taking place with “green” energy, then their “carbon” emissions should plummet. People will be poor, and barely able to feed themselves, but hey, at least they’ll be “saving the planet”.

Gary said: “And Janice, should we not count the cost in millions of acres of land and seascapes sterilized by these renewables, their backup fossil or nuclear, etc”

Sure, Gary, and while we are at it, let’s be sure to include coal’s externalities – 1) impact on health care costs 2) impact on lifespan and quality of life 3) impact on the environment where strip mining or mountaintop removal methods are used.

Griff,
I think this is because the UKI – Brexiteers – have substantially squeezed back our CO2 emissions – at the risk of winter brown-outs [if not black-outs], as we depend on renewables . . . and – if the wind doesn’t blow . . . .

I find this whole issue of discussing CO2 emissions rising or falling to be somewhat silly. The underlying premise of these discussions id that CO2 is “dangerous” or “toxic” in some fashion. To even bother discussing it is merely creating Fake News.

Scraft , your point is exactly that of the vast majority of sceptics. The thermageddon crowd created the myth that sceptics don’t accept that CO2 has ‘some’ effect. Here at wuwt you’ve read the quality stuff you won’t see in many other blogs. The thinking sceptic basically says show us that the CO2 is going to be frying us and that it is net negative.
We already see models that proponents of warming rely on, heating the atmosphere at 3x the rate of observations (obs that, too, have been fiddled uowards) and we see an unexpected rapid greening of the planet, particularly arid areas. We see also a doubling of crop harvests a good proportion of which is from higher CO2. Be honest about this and don’t be the last guy hanging on to a foundering ship. If I am right, then what other agenda is being pushed? Wouldn’t it be classic for the whole upshot to reveal that 3%of us were right and 97% of scientists to have been grossly wrong. Did you ever hear about the letter of the hundred scientists against Einstein and his reply? Educate yourself. You are being robbed by today’s designer-brain creating intitutions. (I am a scientist and engineer with knowledge of paleoclimate). Sincerely G Pearse.

Having to respond to false claims about CO2 is a pointless time waster. Unfortunately, leaving such false claims unaddressed is a pointless time waster, dangerous and expensive as leaving them unaddressed implies tacit approval.

Guys in this subthread: if you have evidence demonstrating a measurable effect on some climate parameter I’d be interested to see it. I hear much about how everyone accepts that carbon dioxide causes “some warming” or has “some effect” or whatever but I’ve yet to actually see any evidence. As far as I know there are negative feedbacks into CO2 climate sensitivity. It would seem at least reasonably likely that there indeed are – given the evident long term stability of the climate system.

So then, could someone point me towards the the evidence linking carbon dioxide levels to some climate parameter? No models though please. I do not consider the output from unvalidated models as evidence of anything other than the personal beliefs of the modelers. TIA

Exactly. Before everyone starts discussing carbon dioxide levels and how much we should spend to maintain whichever arbitrary levels I would like to see some evidence linking carbon dioxide to some feature of the climate system. So far I haven’t seen any at all. I’ve seen convincing evidence of planetary greening but other than that nothing to support any physical changes resulting from small changes in the percentage of the trace compound.

It would be enlightening to see the emissions change (figure 1.2) on a per-capita basis to make the impact of government policies clearer.

Sounds good and “fair” at first glance, but no matter whether you believe in CO2 induced warming or not – it’s about the total impact. People in Luxenbourg maybe “Emission-Hogs” compared to people in the US or all most other countries, but they are simply too few to matter.
BTW: If you look up the populance of the country you are interested (Wikipedia e.g.) it’s easy to find out the per-capita numbers.

In defense of VW (and I only say this because they own Porsche ;) it may be that the entire issue surrounding NOx emissions from diesels is intractable, meaning that government regulations are so tight that meeting the goal is impossible. In this case the problems may lie with the government.

Now I understand that MB and BMW diesels can meet the standard (or perhaps we haven’t yet figured out how they’re cheating yet) but standards that are economically unachievable are not standards, they are punitive and designed for meting out “Social Justice”.

I can understand how you tot up emissions from an aircraft whose flight is entirely within Europe but what about flights that start in European airports but finish outside Europe (or vice versa)? Should they be determined on the basis of fuel tank contents at take-off? I wouldn’t fancy having to calculate the emissions in European airspace, bearing in mind the complexity of the relation between fuel consumption and height and speed etc.!

If it’s just fuel burnt in European airspace, who gets the blame for fuel burnt over, e.g., the Atlantic?

All too complicated for me, makes my head hurt! I’m going back to building my tooth-pick model of the Ironbridge!

Not sure why you want to quantify emissions by locality. If the stuff gets ejected into the atmosphere, it doesn’t adhere to political boundaries — it eventually mixes into the global atmosphere. While there maybe some restriction on north/south or even east/west mixing, it will eventually mix out. Gaseous emissions are all a function of fuel burn. Assuming Jet-A, burning a pound of fuel produces about 3.2 pounds of CO2 and 1.2 pounds of water vapor in a modern, high efficiency jet engine. You could produce less by reducing fuel economy, but the airlines would not like this. Emissions of CO and unburned hydrocarbons, which result from inefficient combustion are much smaller. All certified engines have their emissions levels available in the ICAO emissions database which you can see. You can’t look at emissions on a country basis. Maybe around airports, yes. But not on a missions basis.

The do-gooders have to have people to point their fingers at! That’s what this is all about! Dirty rich people! Awful CO2 emitters! Terrible heterosexuals! Damned white people! Stinking taxpayers! Whew! I’m exhausted from all that hating and I need to go pick up my government cheque!

How fitting on D-Day to note that these two nations, recently talking about getting out of the EU, are gleefully enjoying CO2 prosperity and are by no means interested in another German Chancellor ordering them around.

Yay!

@EU: your days are numbered…..

Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaa! from the U.S.A..

#(:))

D-Day (American effort), June 6, 1944
(youtube)

Thank you. All of you, most lying quietly now in a peaceful, green, place, all of you sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, friends. You were why America was “great.” I hope that as you look down on us, as we struggle today against many of the same foes you fought (they are just wearing different clothing, now, and using more subtle tactics), both within and without our borders, that you are proud of the efforts so many are making here to make America great again. We will never forget what you did. And we will never give up. America is!

Always nice to see, and hear, some Italian cars. Then again, i am biased since my first car was Italian, and I have never been without at least one Italian car. They have to be dead drop gorgeous by design since they are fickle mistresses, and one can spend a lot of time simply looking at them simply because they spend a lot of their time broken doubt.

Quite a long time ago, I owned a Maserati. It was extremely unreliable, breaking down once a week. My wife used to use it as daily transport and for the school run. Even though she suffered the butt of the unreliability, it was by far her favourite car that we owned. Just looking at it, or sitting in it was a pleasure for the senses; it had to be since she spent quite some time waiting for the garage to come out to getting it going again!

There are a few really good looking American cars, and a few that have real presence from looking purposeful. American cars are very good value for money, and Americans are lucky in that they get a lot of bang for their bucks. They are also lucky that fuel costs are low which enables them to enjoy big cubic inches; in some things size matters.

Quite some time ago, I nearly bought one of these at auction. It went for a very reasonable price, and I envisage that it would be a good investment. There being only one way that prices will go.

The material point is that the low lying fruit has been picked, and it will become ever more difficult for the EU to reduce CO2 emissions going forward and through to 2030. No one in Europe has given thought as to how its CO2 reduction targets can in reality be achieved.

In Germany CO2 emissions went up last year. The Germans are building many new coal fired generators. They are also closing down their nuclear generators. Both these actions will add to their CO2 emissions. Further, with the migrant crisis, the Germans between now and 2030 will see an increase in their population of about between 3 to 10 million people (including the fact that young migrants will be reunited with their families and will start having children. This will require a lot of CO2 intensive infrastructure building (new homes, hospitals, schools, more public transport, better roads) and these migrants will want cars, and all modern conveniences. There is no way that Germany will make any significant reduction to its Co2 emissions between now and 2030, and it will probably increase its emissions.

France is also considering closing down its nuclear. I do not know whether macron, who was an understudy of Hollande, will stick to that policy, but if he does, then this will make it extremely difficult for France to meet its 2030 target.

Recently, I made the point that it is ironic that the US, even though now outside the Paris Accord, will more effectively reduce its CO2 emissions far more than those developed countries which remain within the Paris Accord.

There is also another material point. The US can reduce its CO2 emissions without reducing its energy demands (because of the exploitation of shale and the switch from coal to gas). Whereas, the EU has reached the stage that in order to reduce CO2 emissions it will need to reduce its energy demands. Soon this fact will hit upon the EU economies, at which point significant CO2 reduction will hit the buffer of reality. The EU is in for a nasty shock.

Thank you Richard, for putting the energy consequences of renewables for Europe into perspective. Your comment that ” The US can reduce its emmissions without reducing its energy demands” (not that emissions need to be reduced in my opinion) ; and that “the EU has reached the stage that in order to reduce emissions it will need to reduce its energy demands” is poignant. I think it will only be a few years now for this reality to start to be realized. Hopefully the US can stand solid and lead the world out; time will tell.
I fear for Europe. The combination of the Globalization agenda, of which “Climate change” is the deceitful vehicle to implement it, and too rapid an immigration of Muslims who reject Western values is likely going to result in horrific consequences.

And wouldn’t that be a good thing, especially since by 2050 AI/robots will be doing many of the jobs that humans do today. There is no need for train drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, cleaners, receptionists, manufacturing is becoming ever more automated, high street shops are being replaced by internet outlets, banks by cash machines or using your phone for payment etc. One of the looming problems of the next 30 to 50 years, is what are we going to do with people since there will simply be insufficient jobs for the masses.

It is no coincidence that when there are surveys of the best places to live, the best places are usually those with small populations, eg., Canada, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland etc,

Further, the fewer people that you share the wealth of a country with, the richer everyone becomes. Hence if you look at the GDP per capita, the top rank (say the top 10) is comprised of counties with small populations, eg. Luxenbourg, Lichtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Qatar, Brunei, Monaco.

But your comment does not answer the point that a rising population means more demand for energy and hence more CO2.

Of course, Germany already opened many new coal powered stations in 2013 and 2015. But it also still has many in the pipeline, whether all of these will get built is another matter no doubt depending upon demand, but with a rising population, and grid instability already beginning to become a problem, it is likely that many of these will be built before 2030. See for example:

There is a dark side to your glee about those coal fired powered stations, that they are simply exporting the energy not shutting down.

They also explain the accounting error that lead to wrong numbers in the earlier report.

When you do all the proper adjustments renewables makes up 32.3 percent of domestic demand and 29.5% if you add in exports. The greens will take the larger number the realists will take the later correct figure.

The numbers from your own source are and I quote “emissions from electricity fell by 1.6 percent as coal power shrank further, while overall greenhouse gas emissions rose by 0.9 percent because too little progress is being made in the heat and transportation sectors”

This year they also face the change from a feed in tariff to an auction system and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

scraft1 Commented: “…Just about everyone who has studied this subject agrees that CO2 has “something” to do with climate….”
I fall into that category but don’t ascribe it to burning of fossil fuels. If you can’t measure it is it still there?

The US has actually reduced CO2 emissions (in the power sector, at least) more than Europe has, despite all the talk. Despite all their talk about how important global warming is, European’s actions show that they are more focused on getting rid of nuclear than on getting rid of fossil fuels. That renewables should be used to replace fossil fuels instead of nuclear (given the importance of global warming) shouldn’t be hard to understand. Europe’s actions suggest a lack of genuine concern about GW.

Also, Europe has largely banned fracking, whereas the US has reduced emissions mainly due to gas replacing coal. Meanwhile, the Germans (who preach to everyone about GW) use coal (and even lignite) instead of gas or nuclear, for all their power that is not provided by renewables. They seem to think that the sole figure of merit is how much renewable you use, as opposed to how little coal you use, or how little CO2 you emit.

Yes that is is the single metric. It is like all things from the left – based solely on emotion and adherence to quasi-religious doctrine. The ‘progressives’ are driving flat-out for total annihilation of the West and its culture and slowly, slowly people are waking from their stupor and trying to apply the breaks.

Your comment might be true if you consider only foreign aid supplied by governments, However, the great bulk of foreign aid originating in the US is done by private organizations and citizens, not by the government. In paternalistic societies, such as in Europe, there is almost no private aid. Even, the churches in many of these countries are supported by governments not by individuals

This private philanthropy continued to grow,
reaching $43.9 billion in 2014, an increase of $4.9 billion from the
philanthropy figure measured in 2011. U.S. foundations provided
$4.7 billion in overseas giving. Corporate giving was the second
largest component of U.S. private philanthropy accounting for
$11.3 billion. The largest amount of U.S. private giving was from
private and voluntary organizations, which provided $15.4 billion.
American volunteers continued to contribute to international
efforts providing 1.4 million hours for a total value of $4.3 billion in
2014. Other financial flows have shown consistent growth since
the previous Index was published in 2013. Remittances reached
$108.7 billion in 2014, up from $100.2 billion in 2011. Private
capital flows remain the most volatile economic flow to
developing countries, increasing from $108.4 billion in 2011 to
$179.3 billion in 2014. These findings demonstrate the changed
nature of foreign aid where U.S. ODA now plays a minor role.
Only by measuring countries’ total economic engagement with
developing countries can global development aid be more fully
understood and wisely promoted.https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/201703IndexofGlobalPhilanthropyandRemittances2016.pdf

And you know these numbers will be perfumed to give you he BEST numbers possible for the cause. After the late great CliSci guru Schneider (one of the old ‘ice age cometh and it’s man’s fault’ retreads into ‘bigtime warmy’) told the warmers to lie their a55es off about the rate and severity of consequences of the warming to push the agenda.

Read the whole quote. It is the rationalization that freed up fairly honest scientists from their moral constraints and made them into ever more strident liars and huxters. Hey if Einstein had said that to scientists a century ago we would by now think they were a division of Dreamworks™ AND we would be a century behind in our scientific knowledge (that’s the effect that so far no one has picked up on in the current mess) I lay the quickly guttered science at the feet of Ehrlich’s colleague Schneider.

Can anyone speak authoritatively as to the accuracy of any of these measurements of CO2 emissions by country? Who determines these numbers, with what methodology and what are the associated error margins?

Excellent question as I’ve also wondered myself. I assume the numbers are derived from fossil fuel use calculated from nationally produced fuels and fuels shipped in. Surely one couldn’t rely on the country to give an unbiased report.

Ferdinand frequently shows up here, all too often to defend the estimate/guess/wildassspeculations used in climate models.
Ferdinand’s knowledge on the atmosphere is broad, deep and impressive.

I spent too many years in Finance working with numbers that ranged from wild ass speculation to time stamped detailed information.

Estimates are useful for planning, they are lousy at anything else.
Just try paying vendors or employees based on “estimates”. Meaning that when it comes to cash on the barrel, estimates don’t cut it; for neither supplier or user.

Using estimates for rough, very rough planning makes for good sense; provided those who provide the estimates also provide real world error bounds.
A house is built using an material estimates; which also includes 10% to 30% “waste estimates”. The real difference is how skilled is the labor selecting, cutting, assembling the product.

Only the house is not priced by estimates. The actual totals supplied to the job site are the exact charges included in the costs.
The material estimates were solely used to effectively over supply cost centers, i.e. workers, with sufficient material. The “estimate” became realty as soon as the supplier filled in the shipped quantity.

Reality is not estimate based. Every estimate often fails dismally when real numbers are obtained/ascertained.

Where I worked spent months and millions developing a new accounting system/payroll system.
Close to official deployment, first my Boss, soon followed by myself and coworkers were thrown into the developing mess.

One critical problem thrown my way was alpha test sites identified payroll problems. I talked to the responsible functional manager who besides being surprised that I understood him, he was mortally grateful that I understood the “field reporting system” his test sites were using to determine errors.
I also talked to the program’s executive who railed about “field customers” who do not understand the unprecedented accuracy they were experiencing. He also had quite a few abusive adjectives too, which caused senior management to forbid his talking to any customer again.

Following the chain through various program development managers and coders quickly confirmed my fears. The “program” was not using actual workhours in determining payroll.
Instead, Mr. “most accurate numbers ever” had decided it was too hard for our company to collect weekly workhours on a timely basis across many time zones. So, he had a team develop an “estimate” program using payroll histories.
According to their spreadsheet, work hour accuracies were phenomenal, another warning sign.
That spreadsheet was never verified or tested; the whole charade was an epic wet day dream.

Weekly work hour estimates would be reconciled with payroll every two weeks when paychecks are cut with actual timecard numbers then being put into the reporting systems.

What tripped Mr. “most accurate numbers ever” was that blasted “field reporting system” used by the field line supervisors and managers, which reported the estimated hours as work hours.
Responsible line supervisors were assiduous in grabbing that report and verifying their timecards; often filing work hour corrections within hours.
Only those hours were estimated, along with overtime, sick leave, annual leave, military leave, etc.
Incorrect employee hours, overtime, sick leave, annual leave, military leave drive line supervisors’ crazy. Worse, the corrections they file are not corrections; they’re modifications to estimates greatly complicating matters.

Again, Mr. “most accurate numbers” never understood that responsible people all along through the front line sites did not see workhours; they saw people and the work people accomplished.
When the numbers were wrong, they saw people paid incorrectly, and wrong employee productivities.
Those “most accurate numbers ever” were only that accurate when aggregated to national totals. The finer the granulation, the greater their error. And these were estimates derived from long strings of actual payroll numbers prior to the week estimated.

Far too many estimates are gross generalizations without serious investigation or research; rarely are said estimates in ongoing continuous improvement processes. People are happy with the estimates as they are.

Then there are certain industries and government efforts where the desire for truly accurate and up to date numbers that actually reflect reality are worse than weak. I believe there are a number of government climate doomsayers who greatly prefer estimates.

If it is an estimate, it is unreliable. The older the process for determining the estimate, the less trustworthy that estimate is.

dp: he did NOT say that we “shouldn’t worry about terrorism” he said not to be frightened of the police! Currently there are large numbers of overtly and heavily armed police appearing on our streets carrying sub-machine guns and they are there for our protection. We are not used to that in the UK – our police are not routinely armed. Guns are limited to highly trained specialist mobile units. Usually we don’t see them but at the moment they are visible at prominent locations.

Sadiq Khan is a moderate, sensible, sensitive and statesmanlike politician. He has dealt with this appalling tragedy in exactly the right way. Trump’s latest Tweets criticizing our Mayor have upset and angered a lot of people of all political parties, including many people who would normally oppose him (including me).

I can understand Mr. Khan’s countrypersons being annoyed at what they believe is a misrepresentation of Khan’s public statement. It clearly, nevertheless, readily allows for the meaning which Trump read in it. The second clause is independent of the first and only made dependent by an assumption. That assumption is plausible and, thus, I can ALSO see how the British could be offended at Trump’s take on it.

My opinion, bringing into the record:

1) Mr. Khan’s past statements about how safe London is in spite of what the K0r@n says (i.e., he asserts that because Mu$l1m$ will not follow it closely, London is safe from those who follow it devotedly) and how compatible !sl@m is with western values; and

2) Khan’s failing to name the enemy — to win in war (especially where propaganda is widespread, here, that the terrorism has almost nothing to do with !$l@m) it is essential to NAME the enemy and call it what it is;

Trump’s take on it was the most reasonable plain-meaning reading.

All that is not to say that the British, who, as I acknowledge, could easily see it differently, are wrong.

I am saying only that the British might be less irate if they took a step back and looked at that statement by Khan again in a cooler moment.

In Sweden, though being an intensely politically correct country Mr Khan’s statement was universally understood to refer to terrorism, not to the police. Possibly because Swedish police are routinely armed, and nobody finds this frightening.

Janice by breaking the statement up you make your interpretation more plausible, however what was said was:
“Londoners should be aware that there will be additional armed and unarmed police officers on our streets from tonight in order to keep Londoners, and all those visiting out city safe. I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.”

It might seem strange to those in the US but armed police are rarely seen in the UK and seeing them is a cause of alarm.

“Sadiq Khan is a moderate, sensible, sensitive and statesmanlike politician.”

Khan has been sniping at Trump for months, since before the election. And when you disparage Trump, he will have something to say about you. He has a long memory.

Khan is the same type of clueless politician that has gotten Britain in trouble. Unfortunately, he doesn’t look any worse than any other British politician (or EU politician, for that matter). They all seem to be completely oblivious to the enemy in their midst. They are still pretending it’s not happening.

That’s one reason Trump is criticizing Khan, because he thinks, rightly so, that Khan is downplaying the seriousness of the Islamist situation.

Trump completely misquoted Khan. There is zero excuse for what Trump said. it’s not like Khan issued a 300 page press release about the attacks. It was a couple of paragraphs, and Trump still got it completely wrong. It takes a lot for the US to upset their most loyal ally, but Trump has managed to do so.

Here’s a little item about how Khan wants to invite a hate-monger and race-baiter, Louis Farrakhan, into England. Khan is in no position to be giving lessons on morals to anyone if he thinks Farrakhan and his hate speech should be foisted on the people of Britain.

“London Mayor Sadiq Khan — who wants the U.K. to cancel Donald Trump’s upcoming state visit because the president’s “policies go against everything we stand for” — once tried to overturn Britain’s ban on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

It’s one of a number of ironies in the latest dispute between Trump and London’s Muslim mayor, which began with Trump’s tweet Sunday criticizing Khan for saying after the London Bridge attack that there is “no reason to be alarmed.” Khan, in context, was referring to the increased police presence in London in response to the attack Saturday night in which eight people were killed rather than the attack itself. But Trump insisted, nevertheless, the mayor, who has said terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city,” was downplaying the significance of terrorism.”

end excerpt

Khan has downplayed the Islamist threat and Trump wants to call him out on it. Trump may have misinterpreted Khan on this occasion, but there are other occasions in the past when Khan has downplayed the threat from Islamists, and that’s what prompted Trump to comment.

Griff, I don’t doubt that Trump is widely unpopular in the UK and Europe for that matter. The socialists over here in the USA feel the same way. It’s normal for socialists to hate conservatives, especially successful conservatives.

The Good Thing is that enough in the USA support Trump to put him in Office, and I’ve seen a lot of the right in Europe supporting Trump, too. And more will come around as they discover that Trump has the answers their politicians do not have.

I hope I am not violating some policy by leaving this query here, but I don’t see any other place to put it.
Does anybody have any opinions of the worth of this pub from the CATO Institute:
“Last year, Michaels and co-author Paul C. Knappenberger energetically assessed the climate agreement and the overall state of climate change science and policy in their book Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything.
Lukewarming stands solidly against the belief that there are only two camps when it comes to climate change: alarmist or denier. There is a third group—lukewarmers. In this widely read book, Michaels and Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot—it’s lukewarm. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated—with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible.”
Thanks!

1. The article appears to accurately state the lukewarm stance on AGW.

2. The lukewarm belief that human CO2 emissions or other activity such as land clearing are a controlling causation of enduring shifts in the climate of the earth appears there to be not adequately dealt with — merely glossed over and assumed. They have no data proving causation. They have what they consider to be plausible assumptions.

So. The main problem with the article is: it asserts as fact what is merely a guess.

The dismaying aspect of lukewarmism is: it (unintentional, but the effect is just as real), mostly by creating doubt and confusion about human CO2/other activities, ends up promoting the speculation that human CO2 causes “climate change.” Thus, by their poorly articulated argument (i.e., without the qualifiers necessary to be accurate) lukewarmists end up promoting envirostalinism and enviroprofiteering.

“Michaels and Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot—it’s lukewarm. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated—with many of the headline-grabbing predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible.”

Lukewarmers believe that CO2 probably causes some warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, although not nearly as much as the computer models are predicting, although there is no measurement that can currently tell us if CO2 is warming the atmosphere, instead there are guesses. It’s entirely possible that CO2 warming could be offset by negative feedbacks in the atmosphere to where the net warmth added by CO2 might be zero. Noone can say right now one way or another.

Lukewarmers don’t think it is zero, but they don’t think it is nearly as high as the IPCC claims it should be, and ECS estimates look like they are limiting the upside to about 1.5C or less at the current time, as opposed to the IPCC figure of a 4.5C rise.

This quote is incorrect: “Climate change is real, it is partially man-made,”.

Noone, and I mean noone can prove that climate change is partially man-made. It is pure speculation. They can’t prove that CO2 is net warming the atmosphere, and therefore they cannot prove that CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to change. Anytime you hear someone say this know that they don’t know what they are talking about. They are guessing without evidence.

Asking for opinions is a question, but that is unlikely your actual question.

Are you asking if we distrust CATO? Well, I don’t particularly distrust them and I am careful to read their articles carefully before sharing them.

Or are you asking about “lukewarmers”?
Looking to the right side of the WUWT web page, you will find links to other web sites; grouped efficiently under broad labels. One of those labels is “Lukewarmer” and I believe the group only lists web links to sites that actively proclaim themselves lukewarmers.

There are quite a few “Skeptical View” websites that are lukewarmers; but they entertain, or ignore, diverse opinions ranging from refusing all CO2 atmospheric impact through levels of lukewarm.

Or are you asking about lukewarmers?
I suspect this is your real question; otherwise why a policy concern?

Many of us if not the vast majority are lukewarmers.
A) CO2 is a GHG. point accepted.
B) Effect or impact of CO2 on the atmosphere; unverified estimates.
C) Measured CO2 GHG effect on atmosphere; nonexistent
D) Truth be told, there is not a reliable method of determining today’s CO2 atmospheric effects.

Which leaves an immense amount of room for personal speculations and beliefs.
While the 97% climate scientist alleged polls are totally spurious; in truth, as a rough estimate, most of us fall into that 97% percentage.

Very few of us agree with the specious catastrophic anthropogenic claim(s). That claim is not tested, verified or validated by any of the alleged polls. Just the fact that someone’s model allegedly can prove CO2 catastrophic events is bizarre, at best. Far too many catastrophic claims are egotistical grandstanding.

“Many of us if not the vast majority are lukewarmers.
A) CO2 is a GHG. point accepted.
B) Effect or impact of CO2 on the atmosphere; unverified estimates.
C) Measured CO2 GHG effect on atmosphere; nonexistent
D) Truth be told, there is not a reliable method of determining today’s CO2 atmospheric effects.”

I think that sums it up perfectly, ATheoK.

Anyone who claims the climate is changing because of human-caused CO2 is either being dishonest or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Notice that just about every pro-AGW/CAGW article makes some kind of statement claiming that humans are currently changing the climate. I don’t know which ones are dishonest versus the ones who don’t know what they are talking about, but it has to be one or the other, since there is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to change.

They are *assuming* the climate is changing without any evidence. In fact, the evidence goes against their narrative which is that the atmosphere is getting hotter and hotter, which will cause more numerous extreme weather events, when the reality is there is much less extreme weather today than in the past, just the opposite of what the promoters of CAGW say will happen.

I heard Al Gore a couple of days ago claiming looking at today’s weather was like reading about the horrors of the End of Times in the book of Revelations, and I thought to myself, what planet is this guy living on. What extreme weather? Gore, and his ilk, are completely delusional, seeing only what they want to see.

And I heard Gore say at the same time that seeing fish swimming in the streets of Miami was proof that the oceans were rising fast because of CAGW and were flooding Miami as a result.

This just demonstrates what a deliberate liar Gore is. There is no way he couldn’t know that the ocean rising is not the reason for the flooding in Miami. Instead it is a matter of geology and building codes. Gore has to know this, so he is deliberately telling a false story to promote his religion. Gore is an accomplished liar, just like his old boss Bill Clinton.

That CO₂ is a “greenhouse gas” GHG is based on the simple definition given that a “greenhouse gas” absorbs and emits infra-red frequency particles of light.

CO₂ meets that definition.

Is the wrong name applied to infrared emitting/absorbing molecules? Absolutely!

Because of that erroneous name aspect, green house gases are attributed amazing powers; drawn from assumptions based on ordinary people’s experiences with common greenhouses.

CO₂ does have atmospheric effect.
What is not known or accurately measured is an accurate CO₂ – atmosphere interaction scenario.

Given CO₂’s immense accretion rate of 1.2 CO2 molecules per ten thousand molecules of atmosphere over 135 years:
without exacting measured CO₂ impact or effects,
without a rational detailed working CO₂ / atmosphere understanding,
working with the grossest of estimates…

Alleged climate scientists have failed citizens and science within every atmospheric science front.
Literally, climate scientists have snatched ignorance from the jaws of knowledge; preferring the darkness of abject ignorance to the bright light of reality and science.

Where and when does gross job malfeasance become base fraud?
Instead, ask why climate science has totally failed to improve atmospheric knowledge even with immense amounts of money thrown at climate science?

That abject refusal of climate science to advance climate science in lieu of global political activism smacks of fraudulent activities from treason to social psychological damage to willful malfeasance wasting precious public funds.

You make some good points in your comment, Theo. What passes for science among “climate scientists” is little more than fantasy. They fail to understand how complex climate is, impossible to model accurately, especially when they don’t understand most of what is going on. It is frightening that what these clowns call research is little more than inventing some numbers (carefully adjusted), making a lot of assumptions to make sure they get the answer they want, pushing it all through their streamlined computer model, and publishing what comes out. Naturally in a peer-reviewed journal that sends the MS to “friendly” peers for review. Seldom have so many been so delighted with so much garbage!